But by her very own definition, the Church cannot enter into heresy, so those who do fall into heresy are no longer of the Church, even should the heretics be the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Church can and has entered into heresy and has returned from it, to claim otherwise is simply semantic nonsense. The institution is of greater importance than the dogma, so if we must choose between the two let us choose the former.

The encyclical of 1848 was actually the decision of three councils. To my Church, which was part of Constantinopolis that time, but wasn't part of Constantinopolis when anathemas were lifted, is as much valid and binding as the decision on Creed of Nicea-Constantinopolis. I don't question the authority behind them and I do consider them theologically binding, along with hundreds of millions of other Orthodox Christians.

The encyclical is just that, an encyclical. A signed letter. The 1848 encyclical might be the product of a local council (I'm not sure if it actually was), but the decisions of local councils are not binding as people will readily point out with the Synod of Jerusalem. It is certainly not on the same level of an ecumenical synod.

Quote

Decisions of a Council are certainly more binding than decisions of a “meeting” which was that in Balamand, where my Church, btw, didn't participate.

We're not talking about an ecumenical synod. Balamand actually carries more weight than the 19th century encyclicals for everybody because it's more recent and reverses the stance of the church as stated in the earlier encyclicals. Neither are binding however, the earlier encyclicals or the Balamand Agreement, and in both cases some churches did not sign on to the documents. The Russians for instance were not signatories to the 1848 letter, but were to Balamand.

Quote

So cease spreading disinformation about us Orthodox, please. Speak for your religion only.

I was personally thinking of Chrysostom when I wrote what I did about the variation between schism and heresy...

It is better to remain loyal to the Church and enter knowingly into Heresy than to break off and risk Schism.

It's easy to be selective, but, the canons and teachings of the Orthodox Church make it quite clear that we must not commemorate heretical bishops.

Quote

The Church can and has entered into heresy and has returned from it, to claim otherwise is simply semantic nonsense. The institution is of greater importance than the dogma, so if we must choose between the two let us choose the former.

You remind me of the type of author who holds a minority opinion but insists it is the majority opinion, and flouts his education, and whenever others disagree with him, keeps on chugging along, insisting he is right, waging battle, admitting of no compromise, and suggesting despite the ton of evidence to the contrary, that he is right and all others are stupid.

I have a responsibility before God to make sure I do not allow people to be led astray while I perform my duties on this website, which I consider a ministry. You abuse our relative lack of censorship, openmindedness, and sense of fairness by consistently claiming your opinions are Orthodox teaching and not readily admitting that they are your take on things. At least people like TomS make it clear they are acting on their own, but I am quite concerned that those not in the know are reading your material and assuming it is the true teaching of the Orthodox, which you know in some cases full well it is not. You have no right to quote the Fathers when by your own admission you hardly have read them.

That I may be abetting someone who possibly is leading people away from the truth is troubling my soul. If we were running a simple forum with no purpose other than discussion, I would care less what you wrote, but that is not the primary reason we have this forum. I mean what kind of nonsense is this to claim the Church has fallen into heresy? This is absurd. I would request therefore that you tone down your rhetoric or at least start being very clear where your opinions deviate from Orthodox consensus. As I have stated before, I try to be very clear about my Old Calendarist leanings, so you should be more clear about your GisCist leanings (sorry, I don't really know the right adjective to describe your system).

The Church can and has entered into heresy and has returned from it, to claim otherwise is simply semantic nonsense. The institution is of greater importance than the dogma, so if we must choose between the two let us choose the former.

On the contrary, it is the dogma that makes the Church the Church. How can a religious assembly not cease to be Christian if it preaches a Gospel contrary to that which Christ and His Apostles taught?

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema). As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (anathema). - Galatians 1:8-9

Byzantine imperialism is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and St. Paul.

It's easy to be selective, but, the canons and teachings of the Orthodox Church make it quite clear that we must not commemorate heretical bishops.

As I read them they only forbid commeration after they have been formally condemned by the synod and have been properly deposed according to proper ecclesiastical procedure (the first-second synod places great emphasis on the formalities as the only sure means to distinguish between those who are actually heretics and those who have simply been falsely accused)

Quote

You remind me of the type of author who holds a minority opinion but insists it is the majority opinion, and flouts his education, and whenever others disagree with him, keeps on chugging along, insisting he is right, waging battle, admitting of no compromise, and suggesting despite the ton of evidence to the contrary, that he is right and all others are stupid.

Well, I cannot say that I am entirely certain as to what you mean. I rarely 'flout [my] education', infact the only time I'll really even mention it is when someone launches an ad hominem attack against me...defusing one fallacy with another. I encourage people to take my arguments on the basis of their internal logic...if they are reasonable, well one would do well to consdier them, if one does not regard them as reasonable then they are free to reject them as such. I am not the Pope, I do not speak infallibly, nor do I claim that I do. But I do believe that, at least once in a great while, I am capable of formulating a half-way reasonable argument.

Quote

I have a responsibility before God to make sure I do not allow people to be led astray while I perform my duties on this website, which I consider a ministry. You abuse our relative lack of censorship, openmindedness, and sense of fairness by consistently claiming your opinions are Orthodox teaching and not readily admitting that they are your take on things.

If I did not believe my opinions to be Orthodox, do you believe that I would hold them? Now, I will readily admit, as I have several times even over the past week or so, that my opinions lie towards the left of modern Orthodox Academia (though if one looks around in the parish, they will find those who are far more ecumenist and liberal than myself). I do not believe that were I to attend the theological school in say Thessaloniki or Athens I would be substantially out of step with the typical instructors and having read some of the articles that have come out of those faculties I am certain that there would even be some professors substantially to the left of myself.

In fact, some of my opinions that might come under the strongest fire in these institutions would be positions that allign with say the Old Calendarists though for different reasons; I have heard the action of Constantinople in regard to Esphigmenou condemned several times, not because of some notion of monastic rights or 'orthodoxy or death' but rather because these people believe that we need more religious freedom within the Church and should foster different and diverse opinions, even when they lead to something as serious as non-commemoration.

So yes, I often use my own reasoning in regard to my positions and my arguments, but I cannot see how this is contrary to Orthodoxy. With Galileo I must suggest that 'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.' If my rhetoric causes people to critically consider an issue, to doubt, and to reason then is this not a good thing? Surely you would agree with me that a well thought out and well reasoned faith is preferable to blind faith?

Quote

At least people like TomS make it clear they are acting on their own, but I am quite concerned that those not in the know are reading your material and assuming it is the true teaching of the Orthodox, which you know in some cases full well it is not. You have no right to quote the Fathers when by your own admission you hardly have read them.

Well, it is rare that I do act on my own, and I do try to make that clear. For example, on apokatastasis I may be in the minority but I am by no means alone; or on the issue of the primacy of Constantinople I am perhaps more moderate than some who I often cite on the subject, Zonaras and Aristenos, as an example, even argued that the Synod of Constantinople had jurisdiction even over the Bishop of Rome; throughout the History of the Church we see several Patriarch of Constantinople actually taking direct jurisdiction over the other ancient Patriarchates, I generally only argue that Constantinople has jurisdiction over all save the other four ancient patriarchates and cyprus, if you read Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis' history of the Oecumenical Patriarchates (yes, it is available in English) you will find that the positions I argue are actually quite moderate, they are only considered extreme in the context of the 20th century. As to other moral issues I speak about, well I dont believe what I advocate is generally any more liberal than that which my Metropolitan has been known to advocate. Or as another issue, when I state that Orthodoxy and Catholicism or Anglicanism are compatable, I'm not comming up with this stuff on my own, I'm getting it from Patriarchal Encyclicals and Endimousa Synods...though it would seem that these arn't sufficiently 'mainstream'.

Ulimately I am a moderate amongst the Orthodox...it is only in this world of 'internet orthodoxy' that I am an extremist.

Quote

That I may be abetting someone who possibly is leading people away from the truth is troubling my soul. If we were running a simple forum with no purpose other than discussion, I would care less what you wrote, but that is not the primary reason we have this forum. I mean what kind of nonsense is this to claim the Church has fallen into heresy? This is absurd. I would request therefore that you tone down your rhetoric or at least start being very clear where your opinions deviate from Orthodox consensus.

So you request that I put a dislcaimer everytime my positions deviate from what? From the position of my Bishop? Those are relatively few and far between, perhaps there would be some disagreement on apokastasis though I dont know for certain, I haven't heard his Eminence speak on the subject nor have I read anything that his Eminence wrote. Or perhaps how I deviate from the opinions held in Constantinople? I fear they are too quite on many of these issues to say anything with any degree of certainty. Or are you refering to some mythical 'patristic consensus' which I have long ago stated that I believe to be utter non-sense (and no, I'm not alone on this I had several professors who would have agreed with me whole hartedly and I have read as much from several other Orthodox Academics, infact those who have said the opposite seem to be in the minority from my experience)

As for what I say about heresy and schism, I simply insist that it is not for the laity to condemn Bishops. How arrogant to think that a layman can break off from his Bishop and remain in the Church. When reading the First-Second Synod one will notice that the monastic or layman is not even given the option of separating from his Bishop or Metropolitan unless he has been FORMALLY condemned by his Synod. The only option of separating from a Patriarch in heresy is given to Clergy, not laity, and even then it is only in case an ancient heresy that had already been condemned is being taught, and it is clearly being taught in the Church without any possibility of mistaking it for what it is. I simply argue that the laity remain loyal to the Episcopacy and do not take it upon them to be the judges of Patriarchs and Synods.

You want good ecclesiology on this matter? Consider Ignatios of Antioch, 'For there is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one among rulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and good order to those over whom he rules. He who honours the bishop shall be honoured by God, even as he that dishonours him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church's] unity, and throwing its order into confusion?'

I may not be the world's foremost patristic scholar, but I am not as entirely ignorant in canonical matters as you would seem to suggest. I have had the opportunity to spend at least some time with canonical and ecclesiastical law.

Quote

As I have stated before, I try to be very clear about my Old Calendarist leanings, so you should be more clear about your GisCist leanings (sorry, I don't really know the right adjective to describe your system).

Thank you for your consideration.

Perhas Modernist Ecumenist Relativist leanings? Don't worry, I won't be offended...my Metropolitan has also been accused of being all these things

I must retire for the night but I would like to selectively address a few points, that in all of my experiences in Orthodox parishes, which include ethnic and convert OCA, Antiochian, GOA, and others, I have never met even a semi-educated layman who holds views on final restoration and sexual mores like you do, or that the "Church can fall into heresy" (The primacy of Constantinople issue is irrelevant for me to this discussion because I do know many people that argue your way and that is not a point of contention for me as I accept your interpretations as a standard Greek interpretation).

I have met people who believe many strange things, but they are the people who do not attend even a cursory religious education program, or who are talking during sermons. To claim that it is only on the internet that you would be considered liberal is inaccurate in my experience.

I also wonder why other people who graduated from your seminary that post here do not seem to hold or at least push actively the ideas you push. If they are indeed average, moderate positions, then why are you the only one from your school representing them here?

As for the heresy and schism issue, I do not object to your pointing out that it is a grave error to become a schismatic (I disagree with your take on the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd but that is a debate for another day). But you clearly stated that it is better to follow a bishop into heresy, and that the Church has fallen into heresy, as if St John Chrysostom would have supported being with heretics. This is not an Orthodox position. And it is not arrogant to suggest that a layman could break off from his bishop and still remain Orthodox, for if the bishop has left the Church, there is no reason for the layman to leave with him. Thankfully, I am not a clericalist that believes that only clergy have a mind of the Church. Of course there are arrogant people that leave for the wrong reasons; my position is that we must follow our conscience and stand judgment for our actions on the day of Judgment, and perhaps only retrospectively will one who has left known whether he did so for just cause. Yet to sit on the fence in the face of a dispute in the Church is not really an option either since God gave all men consciences.

To be clear, I do not think you are ignorant of the canonical tradition--it's obvious to me you have read up on this stuff--but I strongly disagree with your interpretation of this canonical tradition and the way you use it.

[insert yawning emoticon, as the admins have still NOT made anymore available]

I don't think we are going to add in extra emoticons again. Our whole view has changed; we used to add a bunch of extras--as much as possible--, then we would upgrade, they would all break, and then we would not continue to offer the same packages. Now it seems best to keep things simple and manageable, and consistent. I mean heck, people are still having trouble with the search feature, and we are supposed to be thinking of adding in emoticons?

The encyclical is just that, an encyclical. A signed letter. The 1848 encyclical might be the product of a local council (I'm not sure if it actually was), but the decisions of local councils are not binding as people will readily point out with the Synod of Jerusalem. ...We're not talking about an ecumenical synod.

The encyclical was signed by four Patriarchs, while three Sees adopted it subsequently at their Councils. Alexandria didn't bother to do that, it is just the Patriarch of Alexandria that signed it.

If the decisions of local councils are not binding, than it would be perfectly acceptable to reject the canon of New Testament and introduce the books at one's wish, since it were two local councils that produced the list of New Testament books.

You forget that the canonical sources in Orthodoxy are not so legalistic. We do have Tradition as the source, so we might not bother ourselves to distinct whether some tenet of our faith was part of Tradition, or it was the decision of a local council that became part of the Tradition.

Balamand actually carries more weight than the 19th century encyclicals for everybody because it's more recent and reverses the stance of the church as stated in the earlier encyclicals.

Balamand has not been signed by Jerusalem Patriarchate, Serbian Church, Bulgarian Patriarchate, Georgian Patriarchate, ROCOR and Macedonian Church. Those Churches that did sign it through its representatives subsequently either rejected it silently, or just refused to ratify it since the signatures were valid only under the condition of subsequent ratification of the Synods. I wouldn't know exact stance of each of the Churches, except that they all did reject it.

The logic you are employing would lead to the conclusion that the Orthodox are bound by Florence-Ferrara Council, or some other robber councils during first millennium, which is not the case, as we all know.

No decision of neither the Balamand agreement, nor Chambessy agreement has been implemented anywhere. At least I'm not aware of that, so please point if you can prove the opposite. Otherwise, either cease spreading disinformation or just accept what I said – that you were doing just that.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 03:15:18 AM by orthodoxlurker »

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

The encyclical was signed by four Patriarchs, while three Sees adopted it subsequently at their Councils. Alexandria didn't bother to do that, it is just the Patriarch of Alexandria that signed it.

In other words, these can't be considered binding statements accepted by the whole Orthodox church, but are encyclicals endorsed by some of the various local synods at one point in time.

Quote

If the decisions of local councils are not binding, than it would be perfectly acceptable to reject the canon of New Testament and introduce the books at one's wish, since it were two local councils that produced the list of New Testament books.

In theory, I think this is actually true, and even though the canon of the NT is basically accepted as it is, the dispute over Revelation led it to be not included in liturgical texts. There is however also confusion and disput surrounding the Old Testament - http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/old_testament.html The author states basically that the OT canon cannot be seen as "closed" per se. Neither has ever been ratified by an ecumenical synod.

If local councils are binding, then Jerusalem and Jassy are completely valid and binding. The same would be true of the synod that adopted the New Calendar (the Old Calendar resistance movements would be completely illegitimate in other words) or the ones that stated that Anglican orders are valid, etc.

Quote

You forget that the canonical sources in Orthodoxy are not so legalistic. We do have Tradition as the source, so we might not bother ourselves to distinct whether some tenet of our faith was part of Tradition, or it was the decision of a local council that became part of the Tradition.

What this means is the tradition is provisional, and the "we're not legalistic" argument is a way of saying we don't actually have a mechanism for declaring what is dogma and what is not.

Quote

The logic you are employing would lead to the conclusion that the Orthodox are bound by Florence-Ferrara Council, or some other robber councils during first millennium, which is not the case, as we all know.

No, the logic I'm employing is that none of it is binding. Some synods do this, and some do that. Some sign on to things, some don't. Some local synods are rejected, some are not. Some agreements are signed on to, but apparently later silently ignored. I agree that one can hold the position that Catholics are heretics, but one is certainly free not to accept that position. The reality, which I am certainly not misrepresenting, is the Orthodox Churches treat and relate to the Catholic Church like it's a valid church with valid bishops. Different churches carry this on in different ways. The Antiochian Patriarchate has a joint use church with the Melkite Catholics. IIRC, the MP will allow dispensation of the sacraments to Catholics in extreme circumstances. The OCA (the daughter of the MP which the ROCOR is now in full communion with) has the Monastery of New Skete which has icons depicting Mother (and now saint) Theresa, Dorothy Day and Pope Paul VI - http://holytrinityorthodox.org/photos/new_skete.htm Intermarriage between Catholics and Orthodox is extremely commonplace, and in every parish I've ever been in there are multiple couples where one of the spouses has not converted. That is the reality, which I am by no means misrepresenting. The other reality is the people who fulminate on the Internet don't represent what is happening in the real world.

Ah, since I must grant you benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just erring I need to start ab ovo

Now, concerning my claim that:

Quote

It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

you asserted that:

Quote

Quote from: welkodox on Yesterday at 11:44:08 amThere is no official stance, because there is no official mouthpiece of the church as people usually like to point out

and subsequently that:

Quote

Quote from: welkodox on Yesterday at 12:30:42 pm » In the case of the 19th century encyclicals, they certainly have an authority behind them, but what kind? They certainly can't be considered dogmatically binding. Whatever their authority, it is certainly no greater than the Balamand Statement.

The stakes at issue are: 1)is there is “the official stance” of the Orthodox Church about Latins; 2)are the encyclicals of 1848 and 1895 “dogmatically binding”; and 3)is their authority greater than the Balamand Statement.

A) The Bible itself, both Old and New Testament (but is actually part of the Tradition in broad sense, the written one); It's nice to see you are accustomed with certain second thoughts about the Canon of Old Testament, but let us disregard that for a moment – it would be a long debate off topic.

B) In “legalistic” fashion, the Seven Councils are the source of our Faith (but are actually part of the Tradition in broad sense, the written one)

C) In “legalistic” fashion, decisions of local councils are binding to the local Church; they are basically supposed to be aimed at local administration. But sometimes they do proclaim stances on Faith.

Etc. (other sources)

See what's the stance of the site you quoted:

Quote

http://home.it.com.au/~jgrapsas/pages/2doctrine.htmThe CouncilsThroughout its history, the Church was faced with many difficult decisions. To preserve the full holiness of the Christian Church, condemning earthly reflections and decisions of various heretical personalities was found essential. For this task, among others, the Church through its bishops formed Ecumenical or universal Councils. The bishops with the guidance of the Holy Spirit condemned wrong teachings entering the Church. There were seven such Councils and their decisions were called 'dogmas' or undisputable, unchangeable truths. In fact, dogma means official teaching. Besides the general Ecumenical Councils there were local councils whose decisions were approved by the Church.

Wikipedia does hold slightly different stance between the decisions of councils and Tradition, involvinig patristic consensus .

But, in any case, either we approach “legalistic” or “the Traditional” emphasize, it's actually the same. The question is whether it's the Faith that's been believed everywhere, always, by all, as St. Vincent teaches us.

So the decisions on Faith of some local council, such as those of Gangra (sp?) and Laodicea, as well as of those two councils that determined the Canon of New Testament are believed “everywhere, always, by all”.

Latins profess various heresies, filioque being the first one. It's the herecy anathemized by the definition of Second Ecumenical Council (prohibition of any alternation of the Creed), than again anathemized by the seventh canon of the Third Ecumenical Council, than again denounced by the letter of the Pope of Rome John VII to the Council of 879-880, and by Mistagogia of Holy Spirit of St. Photius the Great (addendums to the decisioins of the Council 879-880), than implicitly denounced by the Pope of Rome Leo (III) by engravement of the Creed without filioque on the silver plates on the graves of Sts. apostoles Peter and Paul in Rome, than by encyclical of St. Mark of Ephesus, than by the confession of Gennadios Scholarios, than by the mentioned encyclicals of 1848 and1895

Link to the list of sources of the Orthodox faith of Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America. They list

Quote

Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East to Pope Pius IX in 1848. Answer of Synod of Constantinople in 1895 to Pope Leo XIII.

as the sources of the Faith.

That Latins can't be the Church and are heretics, what we also proclaim at every liturgy when we recite the Creed and “...believe in one Church and one baptism for reminiscence of sins...”

So:

1) Concerning the “official” stance of the Orthodox Church, I've proved it by the above statements and links. No individuals speak for the Orthodox Church. Only Councils and Tradition (and patristic consensus either as part of the Tradition or as a separate source).

2) Concerning the decision of three councils of 1848 (by which they adopted the encyclical previously signed by four Patriarchs), I also proved it's “doctrinally” binding, since it's what's been believed everywhere, always, by all, just as in the case of the Canon of the books of New Testament, while it's still being in force as decision of a local council in Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Konstantinopolis (that signed it and adopted as decision of the council) Alexandria and in Patriarchates of Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as the Church of Greece, that emerged again from Konstantinopolis after 1848, as well as in Church of Czech and Slovak Lands that emerged from Serbia (as well as Macedonian Church, regardless we hold them in schism or as an autonomous part of Serbian Patriarchate).

In case you deny this, give us the reasoning why we can't add Gospels of Judas , or Thomas to the New Testment. You failed to do that in your previous post.

Argument concerning differences in practice concerning baptism are no issue, since we have only the decisions of the First Ecumenical council (and some early local councils) concerning how heretics should be accepted back to the Church – some by chrismation, some by confession, some by repentance, while some by rebaptism.

3) Concerning the "authority",Balamand agreement wasn't adopted by any council. Even no representatives of all Orthodox Churches signed it. It has neither been accepted nor implemented anywhere. It has been believed by no one, nowhere and never.

If the agrument is that Balamand is “more recent” from “some 19 century councils” (which statement speaks for itself about your apprehension of the Orthodox Faith) I am offering the most recent stance on the Pope being heretic. It's pronounced by an Orthodox Bishop some three and a half months ago. Bishop Nikolay of Plovdiv of Bulgarian Patriarchate. AXIOS!!!

Now, either cease spreading disinformation about the Orthodox Faith; or offer some real arguments and stop being evasive in polemic; or simply stop addressing me with bu||$#it arguments. I avoid heretics after second rapprochement in the attempt of being good Christian. I avoid conversations in vain in another attempt of being good Christian. But, as a sinner, I can't stand would be polemists.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 04:03:36 PM by orthodoxlurker »

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

Ah, since I must grant you benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just erring I need to start ab ovo

Now, concerning my claim that:you asserted that:and subsequently that:The stakes at issue are: 1)is there is “the official stance” of the Orthodox Church about Latins; 2)are the encyclicals of 1848 and 1895 “dogmatically binding”; and 3)is their authority greater than the Balamand Statement.

Is Welkodox intentionally misrepresenting the Orthodox faith when he voices his skepticism of what many call "dogmatic authority"? He may not agree with your opinion that the Church does have an authoritative dogmatic voice based on the premises you set forth in your argument, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of perverting the truth. I see some truth in your arguments, but I also see some truth in Welkodox's arguments. I think the issue of Church authority is much more nuanced than you think and that you're grossly over-simplifying the problem, so please don't be so hard on Welkodox.

Perhaps I am harsh. Perhaps I am too harsh and bitter. Perhaps I was angry. Perhaps I was sinning.

But I'm deadly serious about my Faith.

It was better if I was sinning in being too harsh to Welkodox, than if I was sinning in not caring about his errors posted here.

It was already outrageous for me to see the easyness of his "creative" equalizer between counciliar decisions in force in my Church with some "agreement" from a "meeting" that my Church hasn't even sent representatives to.

If there is the chance for Welkodox to reconsider his thoughts, and if I contributed to that just a little bit, I'd be delighted. But at this moment, I can't apologize to anyone, since I can't find anything offensive in my postings. Just bitternes. Honest bitternes to the bones.

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

As an introductory remark, I'll remind you about the “formula” of St. Vincent of Lerins

St. Vincent's axiom is a neat and I think rather compelling notion, yet in the end falls short in actually addressing how the church can form and state dogma. It is obvious many things the church teaches were not always present, not accepted by all, and underwent a great deal of formation. It certainly can cause as many problems as it solves as well, as any Roman Catholic apologist worth his salt would point out when talking about the Papacy (which they could produce a long list of florid patristic quotes on) and what current Orthodoxy states about it. The Filioque is no different as this link would show - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm It is actually the idea of the Vincentian Canon that they appeal to in order to show the validity of the Filioque.

Quote

So the decisions on Faith of some local council, such as those of Gangra (sp?) and Laodicea, as well as of those two councils that determined the Canon of New Testament are believed “everywhere, always, by all”.

The New Testament fails the rule of the Vincentian Canon actually.

Quote

Latins profess various heresies, filioque being the first one.

The Filioque I believe is the one and only area where there is support for the idea of Roman Catholicism being heretical, because it is addressed in the ecumenical synods. Even a cursory reading of current dialog between the churches would show the Orthodox hierarchs are backing away from that position. So for instance in the recommendations issued by the North American bishops regarding discussion of the Filioque it says

Quote

that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit

That Latins can't be the Church and are heretics, what we also proclaim at every liturgy when we recite the Creed and “...believe in one Church and one baptism for reminiscence of sins...”

Totally begs the question of what the "one church is". Are the Old Calendarists heretics? The Russian Old Rite? They certainly aren't in the church. The fact that Catholics are not baptized simply muddies that water further.

Quote

In case you deny this, give us the reasoning why we can't add Gospels of Judas , or Thomas to the New Testment. You failed to do that in your previous post.

Because there is no will to do it. Plain and simple.

Quote

link to the list of sources of the Orthodox faith of Greek Orthodox Church Diocese of America. They list

Thank you for posting this!!!!! I hope people notice these on the list:

Quote

Encyclicals of the Patriarchate of Constantinople referring to the Ecumenical Movement of the Churches in 1920 and 1952.

as authoritative parts of our tradition. Most importantly of all your link says this

Quote

The Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinopolitan (Nicene Creed) and the dogmatical utterances of the Ecumenical Synods are the primary and distinctive sources of the faith of the Orthodox Church. They have been ratified by the Synods and are unchangeable in form and substance. The other sources, which are the decisions of synods which took place after the eighth century, are of secondary significance, but very important for the historical evolution of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, especially the teaching against the innovations of the Catholic Church, which was separated in 1054 from the Orthodox Church, and with reference to Protestant Churches dating from the 16th century. These are secondary sources, pending ratification by an Ecumenical Synod, and may be accepted, corrected or not accepted. The utterances (primary sources) of the Orthodox Church are mainly part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is of the same validity as Scripture.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Quote

Concerning the "authority",Balamand agreement wasn't adopted by any council. Even no representatives of all Orthodox Churches signed it. It has neither been accepted nor implemented anywhere. It has been believed by no one, nowhere and never.

I've said people are free to reject it. It does however indicate how the hierarchs regard the Catholics now, which is why it is significant and probably more "authorative". It reflects the present reality.

Quote

If the agrument is that Balamand is “more recent” from “some 19 century councils” (which statement speaks for itself about your apprehension of the Orthodox Faith) I am offering the most recent stance <http://www.kirildouhalov.net/the_pope_is_a_heretic> on the Pope being heretic. It's pronounced by an Orthodox Bishop some three and a half months ago. Bishop Nikolay of Plovdiv of Bulgarian Patriarchate.

Yes, and as it states, his brother bishops rebuked him. They obviously do not share his sentiments. Nor do I think does Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia and Plovdiv who recently visited the Pope. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=81078------------------------------------------------------------------

PeterTheAleut, I'm a big boy and I don't take any of this personally. I'm hoping the good news of the Gospel is something that never embitters me, because what is there more sad than that - a Christian driven to anger and hate for their faith.

St. Vincent's axiom is a neat and I think rather compelling notion, yet in the end falls short in actually addressing how the church can form and state dogma.

Ephasize.

Quote

It is obvious many things the church teaches were not always present, not accepted by all, and underwent a great deal of formation.

Emphasize.

Quote

It certainly can cause as many problems as it solves as well

,

I'm surprised you know better from St. Vincent. Are there some more like you out there? Emphasize.

Quote

as any Roman Catholic apologist worth his salt would point out when talking about the Papacy (which they could produce a long list of florid patristic quotes on) and what current Orthodoxy states about it.

Produce one single valid proof of theirs.

Quote

The Filioque is no different as this link would show - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm It is actually the idea of the Vincentian Canon that they appeal to in order to show the validity of the Filioque.

Bull$#| proof. Pathetic.

Quote

The New Testament fails the rule of the Vincentian Canon actually.

Emphasize.

Quote

The Filioque I believe is the one and only area where there is support for the idea of Roman Catholicism being heretical, because it is addressed in the ecumenical synods.

The key words here: You believe.

Quote

Even a cursory reading of current dialog between the churches would show the Orthodox hierarchs are backing away from that position.

Only those hierarchs present at the “meetings”, actually representing a handfull.

Quote

So for instance in the recommendations issued by the North American bishops regarding discussion of the Filioque

Whom they represented there, who appointed them, and who gives a darn about what they said there?

Besides, read the first “recommendation” first, that one of ceasing “pyring into the mistery of God by reason” (not in these words of St. Gregory the Theologian, but the similar sense is there). Having that “recommendation” first, one may wonder if they were not just a bunch of ...hm...

Quote

Totally begs the question of what the "one church is". Are the Old Calendarists heretics? The Russian Old Rite?

Have they been proclaimed heretics by any council not to mention the Ecumenical one? Which heresy do they profess?

Quote

They certainly aren't in the church.

You forget to say again “I believe”. What is certain in such a pathetic and unsubstantiated claim?

Quote

Because there is no will to do it. Plain and simple.

Are you kidding me? Do you “believe” there are someone outside kids in elementary school who can believe these are “the agruments”?

Quote

Thank you for posting this!!!!!

You are welcome.

Quote

and may be accepted, corrected or not accepted.

This is an unorthodox theologumen binding no one. Such an attituce could one day be proclaimed heretical. I hope it'll happen soon. I know many Orthodox Christian believing this, just not being aware on the amount of apostasy in some overseas Churches.

Quote

I've said people are free to reject it. It does however indicate ...

It does indicate only that you failed to respond to my explicit claim for the second time.

Quote

Yes, and as it states, his brother bishops rebuked him. They obviously do not share his sentiments. Nor do I think does Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia and Plovdiv who recently visited the Pope. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=81078

You failed to prove they “rebuked” him. The link doesn't say about that.

Quote

I'm a big boy

But your reasoning is poor.

You failed to refute my reasoning that:1) There is the "official" stance of the Orthodox Church on Latin heretics2) The decision of three local councils from 1848 is "doctrinally" binding3) That Balamand "statement" is more worth than a (toilet?) paper it's been writen down on, not to mention it can be compared with the decision of any council. There might be people who believe in it, but they are either just ignoramus, or heterodox.

Actually, not only you've failed to refute my reasoning. You even didn't bother yourself to address it. What a pity.

Quote

a Christian driven to anger and hate for their faith

.

Where did you see that? Did you mean that commandement from the Epistole of St. Jude, where he commanded us to hate even the garment defiled in sin? Watch out, empty cloud.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 06:43:26 PM by orthodoxlurker »

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

This isn't a discussion anymore and the profanity, vulgarisms and personal remarks speak for themselves. The most curious thing is you posted a link to prove your point, I quoted from it, and you refute what's in the link itself. Please read what you posted, because it undercuts your whole argument.

Not too many cradle Orthodox are aware of the scope of apostacy that has been mounting among some high clerics of some autocephalies for about some eight decades. In fact, some of us became aware about that only recently and still can't believe what we hear.

It should be noted that relativizers of our faith do raise their youth in some semminaries and theological shools. The results of such a training are that recently skilled relativizers relativize anathemas against Latin herecies, questioning the "validity" of anathemas on the grounds - for instance on "conclusion" of some "commission" where the only Orthodox were one bishop, two priest and several laymen, in the country where approximately 2,5% of all Orthodox souls live. Even these "conclusions", that actually represent nothing and bind no one, are read selectively. Teachings about mortality of souls by nature, amendments of liturgies, attempts to water down our stance towards homosexualism, all in line with that infamous "bishop" Spong's "recommandations", are yet to be noticed fully. They've just been seen recently.

The fact is that canonical violations of high clerics do occur, but not so frequently as those violators try to present. We do remember the outrage that Albanian Bishop Athanasios caused, having offerred eucharist to the Catholics in Rome - yet he was cunning in claiming he was not aware that they were hetherodox. We do know Bartholomew placed himself under anathemas by concelebrating with Pope Ratzinger in Istambul recently, but portaying a visit to the Pope of Rome by Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia, when no concelebration occurred, as a sign that Bishop Gregoriy "rebuked" the stance of Bishop Nikolay that the Pope of Rome is heretic is beyond imagination.

Such theology of relativization usually tend to conclude that our brothers and sisters that walled themselves off in "True" Churches i.e. "Old Calendar movements" are "outside the Church", while Latin heretics "are still not condemned by an Ecumenical Council"! They do forget no Council ever condemned our brothers and sisters that walled themselves off from heresies, while Latins placed themselves under anathemas of two Ecumenical Councils and a number of subsequent local councils and confessions of Faith.

The root of many problems is the position of our Most Holy See of Constantinopolis in the last eight decades. Being held captive in the hostile country, having lost every of his flock in this country except some 3.000 faithfull, which is less than the number of parishioners in the parish I attend, Constantinopolian Patriarchate strive for survival and depends on mercy of the Church of Greece, that allowed Greek islands to remain under Constantinopolis, as well as on the mercy of "the powers that be" from "the West", the very same ones that actually had carefuly enforced their plans and put Constantinopolis in such position.

We do simphatize with Constantinopolis and avoid to make her position more difficult. Yet, the Bosphoriacs are trying to usurp the power over the other autocephalies that they never had and are dangerously approaching the point of no return. Thank God Mount Athos is still within to fight herecies. It is only for wiseness of Moscow that destructive and uncanonical meddling in Ukraine, Finland and Estonia did not turn much worse. Papal tendencies towards other Churches, our Most Holy Jerusalem Patriachate sufferred most, are neither forgoten.

ROCOR should not bother herself with the failures of Constantinopolis. We should be all focused to defend our Holy Faith and get Constantinopolis in line with that. Constantinopolis might be forced to migrate out of the captivity in future, so she then might outloud proclaim the Orthodox Faith wholehartedly again.

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

The fact is that canonical violations of high clerics do occur, but not so frequently as those violators try to present. We do remember the outrage that Albanian Bishop Athanasios caused, having offerred eucharist to the Catholics in Rome - yet he was cunning in claiming he was not aware that they were hetherodox. We do know Bartholomew placed himself under anathemas by concelebrating with Pope Ratzinger in Istambul recently, but portaying a visit to the Pope of Rome by Bishop Grigoriy of Sofia, when no concelebration occurred, as a sign that Bishop Gregoriy "rebuked" the stance of Bishop Nikolay that the Pope of Rome is heretic is beyond imagination.

That is a very popish understanding of ecclesiology you have, we Orthodox do not have latae sententiae excommunications. If you believe the actions of His All-Holiness to be in error, take it up with his Synod. Otherwise, His All-Holiness is not subject to any canonical repercussions. As much as you may want to be Pope, you dont get to sit in judgement of His All-Holiness.

I see far too often among the Orthodox--by no means is this confined to traditionalists, for I see this all too commonly among "modernists", as well--the tendency to draw a circle around a rather strict definition of what is Orthodox and to write off as heretics and/or schismatics those whose beliefs stand them outside the circle. The Church has been required to do this in the past, but then we acted only with great spiritual discernment; I don't see any signs of this discernment today. I see only anger and Pharisaical judgment such as I see in the profanities and personal attacks you just launched in your recent posts. By what authority do you define Orthodoxy as you do, and by what authority do you accuse of apostasy those with whom you publicly disagree?

This is what I see Welkodox doing: pointing out to you how Orthodoxy is much bigger and much more complex than fits your narrow, simplistic definition.

That is a very popish understanding of ecclesiology you have, we Orthodox do not have latae sententiae excommunications. If you believe the actions of His All-Holiness to be in error, take it up with his Synod. Otherwise, His All-Holiness is not subject to any canonical repercussions. As much as you may want to be Pope, you dont get to sit in judgement of His All-Holiness.

Ah, but even a closet papist like me wouldn't deny the absolute authority of the Synod in ecclesiastical matters (I may insist that the Synod of significance is the Synod of Constantinople, but I still argue that authority rests in the Synod, not the Patriarch)